Amph Blade Runner (Original, Black Lotus, 2049, 2099)

We don't know Deckard was "created to hunt down replicants". His memories of being a BR may be implanted, which would be in line with a major theme of the film. But you're missing the irony of your question. If Deckard is human, he's also "inferior" in terms of strength and speed and possibly intelligence. So why send out an inferior product to hunt down superior ones?

And...? They used a human and failed. They got a Replicant the second time.

We don't know any of that to a certainty. Bryant may have lied when he told Deckard two were fried; for all we know those two were actually Rachael and Deckard. You don't know when memories are implanted into a Replicant's brain, nor do you know how "risky" modifications are. Call speculation what it is.

If you mean Deckard quit before the start of the film, my answer is that his career is a memory implant. He never worked as a BR, really, so he never quit the force, really. As to Rachael, your statement remains whether she was one of the 6 or not. What Deckard might do and how the public might react are red herrings. Yeah, okay, they might... and they might not.

But that's not how movies work.

 

All I have to say is that the soundtrack still holds up magnificently after all of these years. Such great futuristic jazziness. Why it didn't get an Oscar nomination is beyond me.

 

The film wasn't well-received critically or commercially, so it was not deemed worthy of the higher echelons of awards.

 

"You fans have stupid little minds! Stupid! Stupid!"

 

i like how deckard's gun has two triggers

 

Deckard is a Blade Runner and what Blade Runners do is hunt down replicants. So if Deckard is a replicant then he was created to hunt down other replicants. So him being weak makes no sense.

Why use humans? Probably because of the fact that replicants are ILLEGAL on earth. Which also makes it rather implausible that the police would use something that was in direct violation of the law.

Remember, Blade Runners are given license to hunt down and kill beings that look human in every way. Suppose they got it wrong? And further suppose that the Blade Runner in question was found out to be a replicant? I would think the police would catch all manner of hell for this blatant violation of the law.
Rachel asks Deckard if he has ever retired a human. So the issue is something that they care about.

But if Deckard was a replicant created to hunt down other replicants, why not use him right away? You got the tool but you won't use it because???

You said "But that is not how movies work". Unless you have some reason to think a character is lying you can't simply assume that he or she is without proof.

Also, Deckard can't be one of the fugitives because none of the other replicants recognize him.

And really, if what you say is true then the following happened. Six replicants escape from an off-world colony and make it to earth. Deckard is captured but instead of getting information from him or killing him, they instead give him new memories of being an ex-Blade Runner and they remove all his extra strength and endurance and they make him an alcoholic to boot. Then they somehow manage to brain wipe the other four replicants into forgetting that he existed. And then they let him loose in the city.
No this is totally implausible.

And if Rachel was a replicant and one of Batty's team? He wanted access to Tyrell, she has got that. So then there would be no need at all for all his efforts, like talking to Chew and Sebastian.
No this also makes zero sense.

As for "risky", remember what Tyrell said "The facts of life: To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal." So it sure sounds like making changes is very risky and altering memories fits that bill. Not to mention they had to remove Deckard's strength and endurance if he was a Nexus 6. So that means further modifications.

And, by this stage they had Holden on the case and just let Deckard loose in the city. No, sorry, this isn't plausible at all.

Since the film doesn't say one way or the other, we have to choose which answer makes the most sense given what we know. And given that replicants were illegal on earth, that Blade Runners only job is to hunt down and kill replicants. Having some replicants loose on earth was something that had to be kept secret from the public. Once a replicant goes rouge he or she is hunted down and killed, no exception.
Given all that, having Deckard be a replicant makes no sense. He has none of the advantages the replicants have and no good reason not to have them. He is given a very serious job, one that has a license to kill. And he is working in a place where his kind is illegal and if his presence would ever become known would create all kinds of havoc.
Also the film doesn't establish that you can implant memories of last week or last month.
Not to mention that all the cops in the city would have to be in on this subterfuge, they must all treat Deckard as if he used to work there but really he never did. Again very far fetched.

[/QUOTE]

Since the films doesn't say for sure whether Deckard is human or not, we have to use the available evidence and see which scenario makes the most sense. Since the unicorn can be explained in other ways than Gaff having inside knowledge of Deckard's dreams, it is suggest that Deckard might be a replicant but doesn't prove it.

That Deckard is human isn't 100% proved either so we, the audience, have to decide for ourselves.
And for me, having Deckard a replicant creates far too many logic problems and weakens the overall story, so I choose to think that he is human.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

I don't find your arguments persuasive.

 

But to be more specific:

This is circular reasoning. In the explanation I'm conjecturing, the decision to give Deckard BR memory implants might have come up in desperation, after Holden's death. If Deckard is a Nexus-7 -- again, he is exactly that in the official sequel novels -- his weakness makes perfect sense.

You're asserting your own imagined version of events in an "if/then" proposition, assuming your version is the real one and basing the rest of your argument on that imaginary position. (In case you're interested, this is called a reification fallacy.)

In the universe that you live in, are the police sometimes guilty of breaking the law?

Okay, I'm following your suggestions and I'm imagining a licensed BR "got it wrong". Now I'm further supposing the BR in question "was found out to be a replicant". I am agreeing with your suggestion that "the police would catch all manner of hell for this blatant violation of the law".

Now I'm asking you what was the point of this exercise in "supposes"? The cops do something wrong, are found out and roundly chastised for it by the mayor, the chamber of commerce, the press and the police internal affairs office. Some people lose their jobs. Others squeak by with a greasy lawyer to oil the wheels of justice. Some people do jail time. This sounds like a great story! I could see it happening, it's all very plausible to my mind -- from the wrongdoing by members of the police force to the ensuing prosecutions.

Maybe it's why Gaff decided not to follow Deckard and Rachael. He didn't want to risk the public getting word and decided to let them go.

Don't follow you here.

You don't know that; it's an assumption you keep making because you think it supports your objection. You seem unwilling even to entertain the notion that you might be mistaken, and that the police drafted Deckard in desperation after Holden's death, and implanted his BR memories at that point and no earlier.

This is sheer rhetoric. Suddenly movie characters can't lie unless we have "proof" of their lies? In the first place the entire premise that Deckard is a Replicant is explained by the idea that Bryant is lying. In the second director Ridley Scott supports that very premise. So pointing to my earlier assertion "That is not how movies work", in an attempt to contradict the film-maker's own ideas, rings hollow. You may not think that's how movies are made, but Ridley Scott appears to think differently, and if you don't mind I'm going with his ideas on the subject.

... except Batty, who calls him by name. Zhora could be playing it cool, pretending she doesn't recognize him, Rachael has had memory implants (that is, if she's an escapee), and with Pris it's ambiguous, as apart from the fight she never has an exchange (of dialogue) with Deckard that might give away her recognition.

You've got it wrong from start to finish, and this is called a straw-man argument. Deckard is captured, sure, but since he's a Nexus-7 (as in the official sequel novels) they don't have to remove any "extra strength" as if he's a Tylenol capsule. Maybe he's been an alcoholic since his creation. See above regarding the others' recognition of him. The police feel comfortable "letting him loose in the city" because of the certainty of his memory implants and Nexus-7 levels of human normalcy.

But Rachael -- if she's one of the 6, and I'm not convinced she is -- has had her memories replaced and she's sequestered inside the Tyrell building. Batty has no access to her. So, no.

Wrong on both counts. As you've repeatedly ignored for your own mysterious reasons, Deckard might have been a Nexus-7, as he is in the official sequel novels, and as such he would have no superhuman "strength and endurance" to "remove". I don't have Tyrell's exact quote in front of me, if he said "evolvement" he must have meant "evolution" and I'm simply not buying your unsupported claim that memories are an "alteration in the [evolution] of an organic life system".

You keep repeating this "loose in the city" thing, as if Deckard is a rabid pit bull. He has human strength and human memories as a police officer. He's not going to maul human children or rape replicant goats.

I finish later. This is exhausting.

 

Vimes, your view of Blade Runner seems to miss out key events, or just miss obvious subtext.

Deckard may not be one of the six who spawned the story; the implication is, in fact, that he's not. But to answer your question of "why make him weak", please remind me of

a) What advanced combat or cognitive skills Rachel has?
b) Where we see evidence of her strength?
c) What the entire point of the post-VK discussion between Tyrell and Deckard was about?

Tyrell: Commerce, is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto. Rachael is an experiment, nothing more. We began to recognize in them strange obsession. After all they are emotional inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.
Deckard: Memories. You're talking about memories.

Tyrell is a man playing god, a man of extraordinary hubris. Building products so good they are all but indistinguishable from humans - it serves no purpose but ego. Rachel exists for one reason; to prove a point. What point would making a replicant with no 4 year life-span who is a member of the blade runners prove?

Plenty.

Similarly, as Blade Runners become less humanised during the course of their work, the Replicants become more humanised in terms of their comparative value in life. Again, it proves points for Tyrell.

I would strongly recommend you read Paul M Sammon's "Future Noir".

 

This is crazy, I just realized that I don't think I've ever seen that 2007 version... just the other two (not to mention the others that apparently make the total count seven!). Hmm... may have to find that and check it out. Thanks.

 

Exactly. What is the fundamental difference between the six replicants and Rachel? Rachel did not know she was a replicant whilst the others did know and in fact had specific skill sets and functions. It's like a new frontier for Tyrell - replicants who do not even know they are replicants. As an experiment, what would be the ultimate test of success or failure? Inserting a replicant into the blade runners.

 

This thread has got me hankering for some Blade Runner action. I think I'll pop it into the DVD player this weekend and watch it again.

 

And I think you overlook one important work "Commerce". Tyrell has hubris to be sure but he is also wants to make money. He would not throw away loads of money and risk his company getting shut down on a whim.
Rachel was an experiment and where was she kept? At the Tyrell co. Which means they could keep an eye on her.
So she was kept in house so to speak. Deckard was just out there and they had no way of keeping tabs on him.

Also you overlook another word "control", Tyrell wants replicants that won't rebel, run away or kill their human masters. Replicants are illegal on earth so that means he can't sell here. So making a replicant that is perfectly safe and will never ever rebel makes financial sense. If it worked he could get to sell on earth as well. But if he put a replicant with the Blade Runners, before he had any idea if his new method worked, is foolishly risky. He risks loosing the replicant and worse yet, he could loose his company.


If Deckard is also a replicant then you add a whole lot of other factors involved.
1) The police would have to go along with this. Or are you saying that the police didn't know Deckard was a replicant?
2) Rachel was still an experiment so they didn't know if they would be able to controll her better and the movie shows they didn't.
But Rachel would just be another replicant on the loose and if she lacks the extra strength the others have then she is less of a threat. But still one that needs killing. If Deckard were to go rouge things would get much worse and if he was exposed then the fallout would be catastrophic. So until they know for sure that these new replicants are easier to controll, it seems a huge risk to place one with the Blade Runners.
3) The reactions of people in the police. Bryant called replicants "skin jobs" so obviously he has a great deal of contempt for them.
So it seems risky to place Deckard with people that despise replicants. What if Bryant slips up or any of the other police slip up?
4) If Deckard has been with the police for some time and worked as a Blade Runner for some years. Why was he allowed to leave? Rachel was due to be killed as soon as she left Tyrell, so the same would apply to Deckard.
Unless you argue like Merlin A that Deckard was never a Blade Runner, he was just given the memories of being one. He was one of Roy's crew that was captured, mind wiped and then let loose, and had never met Gaff, Bryant and his "life" as Deckard started hours before the movie began.

In short, Rachel was a controlled experiment, Deckard would be anything but. And given how badly things could turn out it seems reckless.

Getting back to commerce. Leon had extra strength as he worked as a loader. Batty was a combat model so he had soldier skills.
Zora was designed for assasination and Pris was a basic pleasure model. All four were built with a specific purpose in mind.
Making an ex-Blade Runner who also is an alcoholic doesn't strike me as something people would be lining up to buy.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

No I am pointing out the flaws in your conjecture and how the various scenarios have logical flaws.
Since the films doesn't say for sure wheter Deckard is a replicant or not we have to take the evidence the film gives us and draw conclusions based on that.
Also can you drop the sequel books, I am only interested what is IN the film, nothing else.
So no Nexus 7 or anything like that.

The main question is: CAN Deckard be a replicant?
Yes.

If he is then we have various possibilites.
1) Deckard, like Rachel, was made on earth as a new type of replicant. They were never off-world, they never met or knew Roy and his crew. Rachel was kept in Tyrell co and Deckard was placed with the Blade Runners and worked there for several years.
2) The same as above except that Deckard was never a Blade Runner and only had the memories of being one and he was activated just before the film started.
3) Deckard and possibly Rachel, were a part of Roy's crew and escaped with him and tried to break into the Tyrell co. But they were captured and their minds wiped and new memories implanted.
Then Deckard was set loose and Rachel was kept with Tyrell.

All of these have problems/flaws.
But lets start with the last one.
First, consider the time line the film established. Roy and the others escaped two weeks ago and tried to break into Tyrell three nights ago. So Deckard has been a prisoner for three days. This is a VERY short time to make up all these new memories, give Deckard a whole apartment filled with photos and all else. Add to this, you have to convince Bryant and all the other police to go along with this. And speaking of Bryant, look at the scene with him and Deckard, it is clear that these two know each other well. But you argue that Bryant had never met Deckard before. And, as I said above, given Bryant's disdain for replicants, it seems unlikely that he would go along with this.
And why would the police go along with this? Deckard isn't proven to work as a Blade Runner, he is a rouge replicant with some new memories. And what if one of the police slips up.
Then you have the fact that none of the other replicants ask Deckard where he has been and why is doing what he is doing. If he fled with them then the most sensible greeting for Zora would be "Hey where have you been, I thought the police took you?"
And other people know Deckard, like the noodle guy at the start. How is that possible if Deckard has never met him before.

The second scenario has similar problems, like how Bryant acts with Deckard, the risk of exposure and so on.

The first scenario has the least amount of problems but still have some. Like why make Deckard weak? He could be given some extra strength, not enough to raise eyebrows but enough to make him better.
And you also have the problem with why Deckard was allowed to leave, Rachel was due to be killed as soon as she walked, why wasn't Deckard?

All of them share the problem that Tyrell isn't the police so he can't order them to do what he wants.
Then the risk for disaster if he was ever exposed. That replicants are illegal on earth.

If he isn't a replicant then all the problems go away.
The only two things that needs explaining is the eye glow and the unicorn.

Will finish this later.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Vimes;

Before Bugatti released the Veyron; or McLaren the F1, do you think either built models with no intent to sell them, merely to learn from them?

If so, you might know the name for these - prototypes.

You brought commerce up only to abandon commerciality straight away. Just saying...

 

Interesting that you bring up race cars. Do you think either of the companies you mention would build a race car with a substandard engine and a leaky gastank on purpose?
And prototypes, how do you treat them? You keep them under wraps and test them under controlled conditions.
What you don't do, is park them in a random town and just leave them.

And lets go further, take pharmaceutical compaines, lets say they have an idea for a new wonder medication that will extend peoples lives and make them feal great. But instead of testing them and see if they work and if there might be side effects, they just make them avaliable for sale. This sounds reasonable?

If Deckard was discovered, it would damage the police and the Tyrell co.
I can see that they might try having a replicant as a Blade Runner but only once they were sure that these new replicants didn't not rebel or run away. Rachel was an experiment and they had controll of her. Deckard they had no controll over.
And Rachel did run away so that experiment failed.

Based on what Tyrell said, I got the impression that Roy and co did not have these "childhood memories" but Rachel did.
So the technique seemed new, she was called an experiment after all. So they didn't know if this would work or not.
Given that, as I said, it is foolishly risky to send out an untested replicant into the field and be a Blade Runner.

About commerce, the replicants are built to provide a service, a service that either is too hard, dangerous or too boring for humans. Making a drunk, ex-Blade Runner seem to be a rather limited in terms of marketability.
But the service part doesn't seem to be a problem. The major problem instead is that the replicants are prone to rebel and kill their masters. Which isn't all that odd given how human they are and how badly they are treated.
So if they have tested and found that childhood memories are a sure-fire way to keep the replicants from rebeling, THEN I can see the final test being a Blade Runner. That a replicant can hunt down and kill other replicants.
On the other hand, Roy was a soldier and had fought many battles. But whom did he fight? Probably other replicants, bought and used as slaves by other human masters. So there doesn't seem to be a problem for replicants to kill other replicants.

In closing, given this tendency to rebel, a logic flaw in the film is why the replicants are made to be very hard to spot. Why not put a transmiter inside their brain, heart or spine? Or have their skin color be different or have a bar-code under their arms.

Having to do 20-30 questions and catch minute differences seem a lot of effort for something that can be solved easily.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface.

 

Some quick responses.

It has to with risk vs potential benfit.
If the risk is huge, as this would be, then the potential benefits would have to be worth it.
They had an experiment going on, Rachel, she was under control and as soon as she left, she was to be killed.
Deckard they had no control over if the test was the same as Rachels, then why risk it?

Just that the possibility for a Blade Runner to "retire" a human is something that is important.

The problem is that the soloution could be worse than the cure if they did what you suggest. It would be like trying to beat mice to death with a rattlesnake.
If they had never tested this implanted memory thing, which is likely since Rachel was called an experiment. Then it is risky and stupid to do this. They had other Blade Runners, Gaff was one. You talk like they had NO other Blade Runners avalible, they did.

Given all that Bryant said, Deckard was good Blade Runner and very effective.
But the left and when a situation arose, Holden was sent in but failed. The Bryant had to call on Deckard, someone he knew could do better. However that logic only works if Deckard had indeed worked as Blade Runner before and Bryant knew him and his capabilities well, which his scenes support.
As I said before, in this scenario Deckard might be a replicant but one that has worked as a Blade Runner for several years before leaving. Bryant knows what he can do and since he never rebel it is fairly safe to use him. However that leaves the problem of why Deckard was allowed to leave the force. And why he wasn't made stronger.
If Deckard instead was human, who worked as Blade Runner and quit and then got brought back in, after a bit of arm twisting, then it all fits well.

No it is called taking films at face value. When I watch films I don't assume that characters are lying unless I have reason to think that they do. Because if we can just ignore any and all dialogue for no reason then all discussion becomes meaningless.

Also, has Ridley Scott said that Bryant lied in that scene? I know that Ridley Scott has Deckard to be a replicant, but he can be one and Bryant can still tell the thruth. If Deckard instead is a replicant that had nothing to do with Roys crew and had worked as a Blade Runner for several years. Then bryant is telling the thruth when he says that two of the six got killed when breaking into the Tyrell co.

When Batty calls Deckard by name, Batty has learned that Zora and Leon are dead and if he knows that then he could also know the name of the Blade Runner that killed them.

All that nexus 7 bit isn't anywhere in the film and I haven't read the spin off books and they are not relevent to this discussion. And as I said above, consider the timeline, Roy and co had been on earth for two weeks and only three nights ago all six of them tried to break into the Tyrell co.
The certaintly of his memory implants isn't found in the film. Rachel was an experiment and it failed, she ran. So they have no reason to be 100% sure this technique would work.

Whcih again they had all of three days to do and very little time to see if it had worked so it is stupid and foolish to risk the company and Tyrell himself on this.
So if Rachel isn't one of the six then that still leaves one replicant unacounted for. So was Bryant only lying about how many were killed?

Again all the other replicants that escaped with Roy were enhanced. And if the point of the new replicants is that they are made to unaware of what they are then it failed with Deckard as he ran off with other replicants so obviously he knew what he was.
The film don't establish that there are replicants that are as weak as human, instead a selling point is that they are superiour to humans in terms of their body and soemtimes equal in their minds.

He has also got a gun and replicants are illegal on earth so his mere presence is a danger.
Esp if people found out that he works as a Blade Runner.
Replicants loose on earth are to be shot on sight, that is how it works. They even have a special police force dedicated to that line or work. So having a replicant and then letting him go runs counter to that agenda.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Wow, a thread ruined by someone who makes a wall and refuses to see anything besides their own view no matter the evidence, no matter what the film makers say. Well at least I posted some decent symbolism and pics. Toodles.

 

And for once, it's not E_S.

 

I don't think the thread has been ruined. I hope it hasn't been! This is a discussion forum after all; discussion is what we're here for, and you can always skip over the posts you don't like.

I do think Samuel Vimes has made some good points in his most recent posts, and I'm beginning to appreciate his position. At the moment I lack the time to respond in full, but for those following the debate, hang in there!

 

Oh shut up Juliet.

Vimes; how would Deckard be discovered?

He's "the best", better than Dave Holden. He can spot, after a hundred questions, that Rachel is probably a replicant. If he takes the VK test himself, to get admission to the LA PD, it wouldn't be by someone as good as him.

How, then, would he be discovered?

 

Had some spare time, so popped in a copy of Blade Runner (Original 1982 version) and had a watch (I have the 5 disc collectors edition which features all versions, so may check the others out at a later time).

Haven't seen the original version in years (it's been at least a decade or more) but was fairly impressed how well it holds up despite seeing the Directors Cut/Final Cut in recent years. The voice over can grate at times though it did highlight a scene or 2 of some story elements I had forgotten.

One thing I didn't miss - the lack of the unicorn dream scene. The story flowed well without it and part of me wishes Scott never added it in subsequent versions to maintain the ambiguity around Deckard's own identity as a human or replicant. Still though some scenes still encourage the idea that replicant-Deckard is the intention, particularly the early conversation between Deckard and Tyrell, as well as the collection of photos by Rachel and Leon comparing with Deckard's own.

Overall I had a good time with it.

 

part of me really likes the voice-overs featured in the theatrical release. though after you get familiar with what deckard has to say, the directors' cut seems to be the better choice. and it gives you more time to reflect too.

 

I never liked the voice-over, even as a teen in the 80s watching the original version on cable. It always sounded hammy and artificial to me, an afterthought neither especially well-written nor well-performed. That is, of course, exactly what it is! After reading Deeley's book I understand why the filmmakers felt compelled to insert it, but I think they should have gone back to Fancher's original script for the narration, where it's a lot more interesting and noir-ish.